Valid Selection and Performance Appraisals DO Make a Difference!

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Employment discrimination Unfair vs. unlawful. State Human Affairs Law Prohibits Employment Discrimination Based On: RACE COLOR RELIGION NATIONAL ORIGIN.
Advertisements

Chapter 4 What’s Legal and What’s Not Title VII Uniform Guidelines Affirmative Action Negligent Hiring Chapter 4 Legal and What's Not1.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN Testing McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved The Constitution will always protect an.
Hampton Inn Case Study Bryan Andrews. Meeting Legal Requirements Bryan Andrews.
Human Resource Management Chapter 10 Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Power Point Slides developed by Ms. Elizabeth Freeman
Valid Selection and Performance Appraisals DO Make a Difference! Dr. Stan Malos, J.D., Ph.D.
Selection Part 1 OS652 HRM Fisher Sept. 30, 2004.
Valid Selection and Performance Appraisals DO Make a Difference! Dr. Stan Malos, J.D., Ph.D.
New HR Challenges in the Dynamic Environment of Legal Compliance By Teri J. Elkins.
OS 352 2/28/08 I. Exam I results next class. II. Selection A. Employment-at-will. B. Two types of discrimination. C. Defined and methods. D. Validation.
Employment Discrimination Copyright © Jeffrey Pittman.
Part 5 Staffing Activities: Employment
CONCEPT OF SELECTION The next step after requirement is the selection of candidates for the vacant position from among the applicants. This is the most.
1.
Human Resource Management Gaining a Competitive Advantage
Police Promotions in the Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service House Study Resolution 149 Labor and Industrial Relations Committee October 9, 2012.
Selection Test Validity and Reliability; Types of Tests Group 5 Luke Anderson Taylor Burton Zach Haas Chris Hahn Chris Kintz Jason Springer.
Mgmt Staffing Prof. Howard Miller. Staffing Function  Among several human resource functions  Benefits  Compensation  Safety  Labor Relations.
Chapter 8 Performance Appraisals and Retention
~ Pattern or Practice Discrimination ~ Engaging in widespread, regular intentional discrimination (e.g. standard operation procedure)
Fourth Annual Public Employment Law Seminar Title VII – Promotions & Hiring November 7, 2013 Eugene H. Matthews
HUMAN RESOURCES HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT 23 March 2006.
Employment Discrimination.  Fifth Amendment – Prohibits the federal government from: ◦ Depriving individuals of “life, liberty, or property” without.
Recruiting and Selection. Recruiting A. Internal v. external.
CHAPTER 4 Employee Selection
Ch 14 Managing Human Resources in Organization
Human Resource Management Lecture 09
Kristine E. Kwong, Esq. PITFALLS OF SETTING MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS.
Part 5 Staffing Activities: Employment
DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION AND THE FEAR OF FIRING Ashley Interrante Scheer Jackson Walker L.L.P. 901 Main Street, Suite 6000 Dallas, Texas (214)
Right to Information in anti- discrimination litigation concerning private employment Lilla Farkas, senior legal policy analyst,
Ethical and Legal Aspects of T and D. Difference between T and D? Training – specific skills Training – specific skills Development – intellectual capital.
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Uniform Framework for employment decisions -- apply only to selection procedures for employment decisions Discrimination.
The Employment Environment Jody Blanke Distinguished Professor of Computer Information Systems and Law Mercer University.
Strategy for Human Resource Management Lecture 15
HUMAN RESOURCES 21 April LEADERSHIP BE WILLING TO DO ANYTHING YOU ASK OF YOUR PEOPLE, EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO DO EVERYTHING.
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT TODAY, 8E ROGER LEROY MILLER / FRANK B. CROSS © 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated,
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Canada Inc. The Changing Legal Emphasis: From Compliance to Valuing Diversity Dessler & Cole Human Resources Management in Canada.
Chapter 13 Employment Discrimination Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written.
1 Copyright © 2010 Delmar, Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. CHAPTER 11 Personnel Selection and Onboarding Andrew N. Garman, PsyD, MS Daniel P. Russell,
Employment Discrimination Concepts Jody Blanke Distinguished Professor of Computer Information Systems and Law Mercer University.
Mgmt Staffing Prof. Howard Miller
C H A P T E R 6 Employment Law Chapter ??.
Human Resource Management Gaining a Competitive Advantage
Performance Management
Chapter 4 Legal Construction of the Employment Environment
Copyright ©2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved
Human Resource Management
HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT 10 April 2007
Selecting Employees – Validation
Employment Discrimination
CHAPTER 4 Employee Selection
Chapter 3 Part 2 • MGT 3513 • Dr. Marler
Chapter 3 Part 2 • MGT 3513 • Dr. Barnett
Chapter 6 JA and the Law.
CLASS SIX-OVERVIEW OF DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT LAW
Chapter 3 Part 1 • MGT 3513 • Dr. Barnett
Proving Discrimination and Retaliation
Carlson Dettmann Consulting, a Cottingham & Butler Company
The Legal Environment of Human Resources Management
Complaint Process Alleged discriminatory act Internal investigation
Performance Management and Appraisal
Chapter 18: Employment Discrimination
Interviews and Discrimination
Legal Issues in Selection
Valid Selection and Performance Appraisals DO Make a Difference!
External Environment Economic forces Global competition
Chapter 7: Selection.
Avoiding Employment Litigation
Presentation transcript:

Valid Selection and Performance Appraisals DO Make a Difference! Dr. Stan Malos, J.D., Ph.D.

Author/Title of Article: Malos, S. B. (2005). The importance of valid selection and performance appraisal: Do management practices figure in case law? In F. Landy (Ed.), Employment Discrimination Litigation: Behavioral, Quantitative, and Legal Perspectives, pp. 373-409. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Key Terms: Validity—The extent to which a selection device [e.g., test, interview] effectively screens for hiring by predicting likely performance among applicants Validity Generalization—The process of applying results from previous validity studies in other contexts similar to the present one “UGLs”—EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures

Case Examples re: Selection Allen v. City of Chicago: Police promotional process that adversely impacted minority candidates upheld due to job analysis and content validation in accordance with the UGLs Williams et al. v. Ford Motor Co.: Ability test for production workers that adversely impacted minority candidates upheld due to job analysis, content & criterion validation, and validity generalization in accordance with the UGLs Ass'n of Mexican-American Educators v. State of California: Defensibility of basic skills test (reading, writing, math) for public school teachers that adversely impacted minority candidates upheld due to adequate evidence of reasonable test development and cut scores in accordance with the UGLs

Case Examples re: Performance Appraisal (PA) Hawkins v. Pepsico: Termination for performance based on allegedly discriminatory PA upheld; case just an "ordinary workplace disagreement" where rater/ratee races differed Spears v. Department of Corrections: Reduction of appraisal from "highly successful" to "successful" (plaintiff quits and claims constructive discharge) upheld due to well-accepted rule: “negative” appraisal w/no tangible harm not actionable Cullom v. Brown: Delay in minority employee's promotion due to wrongly favorable PA, without which employee would have known sooner that performance had to improve, not actionable (no harm); retaliation claim also fails where bad employee promoted due to undeserved favorable rating!

More Examples re: Performance Appraisal Mayer v. Nextel: Failure to put over-40 employee on PIP prior to firing when others were upheld; only managers who failed to meet quota were placed on PIPs, and plaintiff in fact met quota Sauzek and Koski v. Exxon Coal USA: Lower appraisal scores prior to RIF, allegedly suggesting age-related pretext, upheld; scores for those over & under 40 fluctuated about the same *Cerutti et al. v. BASF: RIF criteria developed pursuant to new business plan designed to "repopulate" company with those who could "do more with less“ -- but which disregarded prior favorable PAs-- upheld due to plaintiffs' inability to establish qualifications under new criteria (thus rendering pretext moot -- for failure to make out a prima facie case!)

Take-Home Message Courts gaining sympathy for employers who take reasonable steps to validate selection processes and update performance criteria in changing business realities -- even if done just before a RIF! Still, employers should stay current and validate hiring, promotion, or retention criteria to enhance performance effectiveness and legal defensibility!